Filed: Nov. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH FRANCIS SHEA, a/k/a Diamond Joe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-55, CA-96-1198-2) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH FRANCIS SHEA, a/k/a Diamond Joe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-93-55, CA-96-1198-2) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH FRANCIS SHEA, a/k/a Diamond Joe,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-93-55, CA-96-1198-2)
Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Francis Shea, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Francis Shea seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. See United States v. Shea, Nos. CR-93-55; CA-96-
1198-2 (E.D. Va. July 29, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
July 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2